Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 7 April 2010

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody

Announcement

A few points:

1. DGG previously confirmed that A Nobody changed names due to offsite harassment and that A Nobody shared evidence of that with DGG that was persuasive enough to be legitimate to that administrator. So why do Kww and Badger Drink bring up A Nobody's old username (Pumpkin) here? This behavior speaks more of their continued bullying than of A Nobody's alleged infractions. Yet more of the same from Badger Drink. It is pretty easy to mock someone when they are not around to defend themselves.
2. more... Okip 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Continued bullying"? You, of course, have diffs to back up that high horse of yours? I was under the impression that "A Nobody" / Elisabeth Rogen's old usernames were common knowledge, certainly I was not the first to make this connection in the Arbitration case, nor was Kww. With Fondest Regards, Badger Drink (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has become unhelpful. It is closed. Further comment if the case is ultimately opened may be made, as appropriate, on the case pages. Further comment if the case is not opened will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

returned?

A Nobody appears to have returned. Was ArbCom notified, pursuant to the motion? Can we expect the case to now get underway or will some other action be taken? ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope so, because he's returned in a venue making precisely the sort of comments he was brought to Arbcom for. Aiken ♫ 22:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean opposing the deletion of other editors good faith contributions, that isn't a crime here, yet. Okip 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No-one said anything about a crime. However, you may have noticed when you click edit it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". The articles/contributions do not belong to anyone but the community. Therefore it is up to the community to decide whether an article should be kept. It is not about violating good faith - that misses the point of the process completely. We're discussing whether an article is notable enough for our encyclopedia. Aiken ♫ 22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am very, very aware of it, sigh. I am also aware of the way in which rules are unequally enforced, and the mosaic law behavior in which editors enforce the rules here, leading to a very combative atmosphere....sigh...the reason behind these edits was the "opposing the deletion of other editors good faith contributions". Okip 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody is aware of the restriction. If he makes another edit that isn't in some way notifying the committee to initiate a case, he should be blocked for violating the motion. Mr.Z-man 22:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man, he was emailed yes, I have tried to contact editors before via email, and they sometimes take months to reply. Any policy to back up emailing an editor is notification? I have never seen it Zman.

I see one edit. Okip 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He's allowed zero, would be my interpretation, so that's one too many, absent the required notification. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He was notified on his talk page and by email. That is definitely sufficient. If you think it is insufficient, I would suggest you take it up with the clerks, as that is the standard procedure for notifications (I think emailing might be extra, even) and is used for every kind of notification for anything on Misplaced Pages. We don't collect users' phone numbers, so those are the only 2 ways we really have to notify someone. Just because someone takes months to reply to an email doesn't mean they took months to read it. Mr.Z-man 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So there is zero policy to back up emailing an editor is notification? Okip 05:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He was notified no differently than anyone else subject to an ArbCom decision. If you think there needs to be a policy regarding what is appropriate notification, I would suggest you propose one or stop wikilawyering. Mr.Z-man 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

His health concerns haven't stopped him from editing Wikia this past month. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And? Your point? What _you_ or anyone else believes re: any editor's assertions about their own health is utterly irrelevant, and your opinions re: what they do off-Wiki is even more so. If A Nobody needs to be sanctioned pursuant to this ArbCom motion, ArbCom will take care of it, and I'm fairly sure they would know how to investigate Wikia contributions--if they thought those contributions mattered more than flatus in a cyclone. Evidently they don't. I recommend other "interested" parties adopt that attitude as well. GJC 00:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My point? A Nobody's not too sick to participate in an arbcom. You should chill out mate. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that editing Misplaced Pages would induce a much higher level of stress in a person than would editing a Wikia site. But that is all secondary. Speculating on an editor's health, or indeed any aspect of their real lives, is very, very inappropriate. This issue should be considered suspended until A Nobody returns to editing—at which point it can be re-examined in full. We are not delaying a case in order to subvert the process of scrutiny of editorial conduct, but to protect an editor's well-being. If you cannot approve of that decision then consider the possibility that you have your priorities wrong. AGK 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about wikia diffs, but he's been importing regularly to that annex from en:wp, so he's been around here to find and get stuff that's at AfD. And this is the best diff from over there. Jack Merridew 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC) damn; now deleted (5 minutes after I posted it here); it was adding this link to his wikia user page.

The diff link still works for me, and the content is still on his user page. Looks like it was among the changes he restored.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still getting an error message from the link I first posted, but the edit is back here. All par for the course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cache fully cleared and the diff works again. 'nuf said. Jack Merridew 04:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If he's been active over at wikia while claiming to be too sick to be here to participate in the ArbCom, that is about the clearest act of bad faith I've seen in quite awhile. This is like finding out your "sick" co-worker spent the day at the beach. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave him alone. In the fast moving world of modern medicine, the science of why wikipedia participation causes kidney masses to grow uncontrollably when arbcom cases come up, and why happy wikia participation does not is poorly understood. But it's a fact that wikia is healthy and wikipedia is not. So stop trying to kill A Nobody. A life is on the line here, and you could snuff out its most excellent candle in the service of an online encyclopedia. You all should be ashamed.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a new ruse from the master tactician. A Nobody has apparently gone into a sort of semi-retirement where he feels he can just pop his nose in every now and then to take potshots at editors he hates, without answering the community's concerns over years of poor behaviour. I mean, who's going to kickstart a dormant ArbCom decision over one edit where he's defended Okip? And if he comes back in a few days or a week to do some minor pottering around, who's going to care? Then we'll see his involvement ever so gradually increase until he's back editing at his usual levels, with the same usual baiting, deception and disruption. You'll see. Reyk _YO! 04:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

AGF, please. Someone block Reyk immediately.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Update

Hi folks, as this case has been re-filed as an Arb request, and it appears there is at least some issues going on, I just wanted to provide an update. As a measure to relieve the bickering and to restore the status quo, I have placed a block on A Nobody's account until such time if and when he wishes to return, at which time, the Arbitration Case previously opened will become active.

I cannot stress enough that this block is ONLY to enforce the situation regarding the Arbitration Case, and is NOT pre-judging or judging (or even post-judging!) of A Nobody's behavior. Any administrator who sees that A Nobody has returned and wishes to participate in the Arbitration Committee case should quickly unblock him and notify the Committee via email that we may proceed.

Also, please note, I detect a large amount of sarcasm and snark from various parties above. I think that the parties would best be served by going back to their respective corners and de-stress this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Where? Best! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that the arb com motion was "This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Misplaced Pages. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee." This is not a block on his participation. It is not even a requirement that he participate in the case. It is just a requirement to notify the committee. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Announcement

See here for my comments. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly an immediate and deliberate violation of the restriction, along with a clear illustration of why it was imposed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The link on my talk page, posted by ArbCom itself, clearly says "Discuss this". And note that the text I linked to here (which I posted today on my talk page) was written precisely because I cannot engage in detailed discussions about this issue from the moment the motion passes. So, everyone can now read on my talk page everyting what I have to say about this issue, without me having to violate my gag order. Count Iblis (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The restriction doesn't say you "cannot engage in detailed discussions", it says the following:

"Count Iblis... indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed."

That's a pretty unambiguous statement. Saying 'Here's a link to my comments about the Brews ohare case' is a straight-up violation. You shouldn't take a talk page template notifying you of the decision as an invitation to immediately violate the decision. You are barred from commenting — full stop; your post above violates both the letter and the spirit of that restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, all. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• is certainly something to consider. Unless I made a mistake in reading timestamps? NW (Talk) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  This was not a violation of the gag order, as I wrote it before I was notified of the gag order. The actual posting appeared a few minutes after the notification appeared on my talk page, though. It took me a few minutes to write up my text, I started to write before I had received the notification, but when I posted it, the notification had appeared. Count Iblis (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Likebox is blocked already for this bit of trolling. The wording was quite clear in the restriction - don't discuss Brews ohare - Given he's willing to test that, he's got himself 24 hours off. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Count, why don't we just chalk this one up to bad timing and assume that you know better than to make anther such posting? Seems the quickest way out here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, good idea. Time to move on. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• With the understanding being, of course, that if Count Iblis again violates the restriction, he will be sanctioned. AGK 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll stick to the resriction. Note that when I posted the text on AE I included the statement that the motion has not yet been passed. So I was already addressing that issue (and staying to the point so as to stick to the spirit of the restriction, i.e. no advocacy that drowns out relevant facts). Now, it turns out that I was too late by a few minutes. But, what I wrote does show a willingness to stick to the restriction, as I could not have written that with a straight face ten minutes later :) . Count Iblis (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this essay for general observations. Please see this for specific comments regarding the lack of clarity of this decision, comments made in plenty of time to do something about it. Brews ohare (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm pretty low on the list of persons you would care to get feedback from, but this is a topic I have been discussing elsewhere recently. Not your specific case but rather the vagueness of many policies/rulings/guidelines/etc on Misplaced Pages. It's not an accident. We cannot and should not try to envision every possible interpretation or violation. Administrators, and indeed everyone else, are expected to use judgement and common sense in interpreting policy. The phrase "broadly construed" is often used in ArbCom decisions for precisely this reason. If you have to ask yourself if you are violating the restriction or not, then you should err on the side of caution and not do whatever led you to ask yourself that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a cluocracy not a bureaucracy, the more detail you put in the easier it is for the Wikilawyers to have a field day - however, it is also fair that if someone is in doubt they should be able to get rapid clarification. Part of the problem here is that requests for clarification go in after the event and get bogged down in sideshows. Perhaps we should give some thought to providing a simple mechanism - which can be notified as part of the notice of restrictions in the case itself, when restrictions are part of the outcome - for the restricted user to ask up front whether something is in or out of scope. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Thanks for your comments, which indicate some interest in the issue of clarity of measures and rapid ArbCom response times. My notion of how to approach such matters is simply this: let the editors on a page thrash things out. It's the editors' problem. Keep ArbCom out of it.

ArbCom simply referees to keep the editors from breaking into bloody combat, by enforcing very clear, general, non-specific policies & guidelines that can be arbitrated very quickly, because they are black-and-white transgressions. Because of clarity, no Wikilawyering is possible. (If arbitration is necessary, usually infractions will be obvious enough.) Forgive this observation: I think ArbCom is over-involved in undue details and too slow because many Administrators just like involvement, regardless of its effectiveness.

BTW, for those Admins that like to be more involved, I have proposed a filtering stage be added to ArbCom decision making. The purpose is to sort out in advance those cases where a rapid decision can be made, and send the rest back to the conflicting parties for further clarification before ArbCom gets into it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  or   --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Truth

I generally oppose "drama" on Misplaced Pages, but in the case of User:Brews ohare being appropriately restricted from generally polite but eventually tiresome edits, I am a bit shocked by the restriction against selected other editors speaking on his behalf: Three editors (some of whom seem to have actually had a clue about the substance of the "Speed of light dispute") are "indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed." How can one sit and do nothing when any dissent from or comment on the "officially correct" viewpoint is to be suppressed? Martin Niemöller said ""THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." ("We have the sole and absolute truth right here in this bucket. DO NOT QUESTION IT!") So I feel it is incumbent on me to SPEAK UP and object to this suppression of dissent from the "only correct viewpoint." Shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Edison (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comparison with Niemöller is disgusting because it compares a minor online thing with the industrial extermination of millions of people. It also makes you lose your argument automatically by Godwin's law#Usage and corollaries. I suggest trying again without the comparison in a week or so because there isn't much else you can do at this point. Hans Adler 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There should be a policy that if you're going to link an article, first you need to read it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally it's good enough to remember correctly what an article says, but obviously that's not the case if someone has recently removed a key part as in this case : " there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress." This is what I meant to cite. Hans Adler 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I opposed this restriction, but analogizing a Misplaced Pages editing restriction to the Holocaust is profoundly inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a red herring which distracts from the heart of my post, to dismiss my complaint by falsely claiming that I likened the committee's actions to the Holocaust. The article First they came... says Niemöller's poem "is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control" Besides being an historical account of the Holocaust, the poem has been applied to people adapting to an abusive environment or societal injustice, or standing passively by to save their own skin, when their conscience calls on them to question what is being done. The antipathy in the present case started with one editor who was restricted from continuing an obscure scientific argument which went against consensus of a few other editors who seem to understand the abstruse issue. I do not disagree with that action. But then the antipathy spread against several editors who criticized the restrictions against the first editor, and they were "indefinitely restricted" from questioning ("broadly construed") the restrictions against the first editor. Let's get back to my point: Only as a last resort should we impose secondary gag orders. They should not be indefinite in duration, and they should not be "broadly construed." Edison (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration procedure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(the announcement, moved here from the main page)

The Arbitration Committee understands the concerns and commiserates with those who invest a significant time and effort into arbitration cases before the Committee, only to not get the results they were hoping for or expecting. As a direct result, the members of the Committee would like to announce the following change.

In lieu of lengthy and emotional arbitration cases, conduct and content disputes will be resolved via the new Arbitration Magic 8-Ball. Please note: The rulings of the Magic 8-ball are inviolable, and completely binding. Anyone who fails to completely abide by and enact the Magic 8 Ball's rulings will be subject to their own Magic 8-Ball remedy. If you want to try this out (use at your own risk!), Click here.

Discuss it here, and remember.. keep it low-key. Have fun, but not too much fun. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So everyone knows, this new procedure is the result of several months of discussion amongst the Committee, and we truly hope this will make for quicker, fairer, and more effective resolution of disputes. Best of luck to all who must face the 8-Ball. Hersfold 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, in my day, we didn't disclose these sorts of secrets. We just waited a few months, consulted the 8-ball, and then told people that there was "deliberation" and stuff. --Deskana (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a few other remedies that should be included, such as "Banished to Wikiquote for one year." Any others anyone can think of? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we salted WP:BJAODN. Skinwalker (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we gave it a bit of a lemon glaze.. a little salt.. a little spice.. and then grilled it for 15 minutes or so.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully endorse this product and/or service. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So what will it's first official try out be? The non barbie reverting the announcement? Peachey88 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I've been wrong in all those MFD discussions. We do practice damnatio memoriae on Misplaced Pages. --Carnildo (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were giving up on arbitration :( My ¡vote is to handing 'em off to Wikiversity and letting Jimbo decide.  fetchcomms☛ 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe the 8-ball'll have enough influence to turn ArbCom into this... who knows? ♠ 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You posted it two minutes too early :P Filest (aktl) 08:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am surprised that there are not more potshots... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were not in class right now I would be on the floor laughing...as it is, it feels like I cracked a rib keeping myself from laughing. This is right up there with this. =D Ks0stm 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• A hearty *golf clap* for this. Nothing like a sense of humour! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the new arbitration procedure posted ? Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Click on the announcement at the top of the section, Abecedare. :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did that already. But where are the new arbitration procedures ? ;-) Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes note to add "draw-and-quarter to the 8-ball someday soon. Good one, Abecedare :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the response. Of course we do not use a Magic 8 Ball to determine how to handle Arbitration Cases. That's what the Ouija board is for. SirFozzie (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes in Checkuser and Oversight permission holders

Announcement

It'll be great to have John back on board. Hopefully Thatcher will have some more time for Wikimedia related projects in the future and he'll be able to get back involved as a functionary. Thanks to both of them from me. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Both are/were worthy holders of the posts mentioned. I wish both best of luck. Aiken ♫ 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)